Supreme Court to Examine Separate Sanctions Under Lokpal Act in Plea Against Mahua Moitra
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra on a petition filed by the Lokpal of India. The petition challenges a Delhi High Court judgment on the Lokpal and Lok Ayuktas Act, 2013.
The High Court had held that the Act does not provide separate sanctions for filing a chargesheet and for launching prosecution.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi agreed to examine the issue. It also passed an interim order. Through that order, the Court clarified that the Lokpal need not take a decision on sanction for prosecution under paragraph 89 of the High Court judgment.
The Bench also expressed prima facie reservations about the High Court’s interpretation. According to the Court, the issue requires examination of the interplay between Sections 20(7)(a) and 20(8) of the Lokpal Act.
High Court View on Lokpal Sanction Chargesheet Prosecution
The Delhi High Court held that Section 20 of the Lokpal Act does not contemplate a separate sanction for filing a chargesheet.
In its view, sanction is granted only in a composite manner for prosecution.
On that basis, the High Court quashed the sanction granted by the Lokpal to the CBI. That sanction had allowed the CBI to file a chargesheet against Mahua Moitra in the cash-for-query row.
The Lokpal then moved the Supreme Court and challenged the interpretation adopted by the High Court.
Core Issue in Lokpal Sanction Chargesheet Prosecution
Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar appeared for the Lokpal. He submitted that the authority was aggrieved by the High Court’s interpretation of the Lokpal Act. He also said the challenge did not concern any particular individual.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that the CBI supported the interpretation advanced before the Court. At the same time, he said Mahua Moitra needed to be investigated.
According to him, the central issue was whether the statute contemplates two stages of sanction. One stage would cover filing the chargesheet. The second would cover launching prosecution.
Supreme Court Examines Lokpal Sanction Chargesheet Prosecution
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi said Section 20 appears to envisage separate stages. One stage concerns sanction for filing a chargesheet. The other concerns initiation of prosecution.
He said this distinction matters because the Lokpal may decide that its own agency should conduct the prosecution instead of the investigating agency.
Justice Bagchi observed: “Mr. Solicitor, ff you see the provisions (Section 20(7)(a) and 20(8)), apparently they overlap. But there are fine distinctions between the filing of a charge sheet and the conduct of prosecution. And when the conduct of prosecution comes into interplay, see the history of Lokpal Act. Lokpal Act is to create public confidence in the enquiry into and prosecution of public servants who are highly placed, where there’s a real or perceptible fear that he/she may disable the investigating and prosecution agencies from conducting their duties. So does the Lokpal not apply its mind when the sanction under Section 20(7)(a), that he’s satisfied about the fairness of investigation…as soon as it is filed, it would be duty to conduct the prosecution, through the prosecution agency which is aligned with the investigating agency. But in 20(8), the Lokpal takes the second call, that this investigation fairly done should not go to waste by an indolent prosecution. So Lokpal may say we will withhold the prosecution from the investigating agency and may direct prosecution through my agency. Let’s examine the interplay of the sections in light of BNSS and the Prevention of Corruption Act.”
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant also noted that Sections 20(7) and 20(8) use different expressions.
Interim Relief in Lokpal Sanction Chargesheet Prosecution Case
When the Bench indicated that it was inclined to issue notice, Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, appearing for Mahua Moitra, sought a status quo order.
The Bench, however, said both sides’ concerns would be addressed if the Lokpal was not required to act in terms of paragraph 89 of the High Court judgment.
Paragraph 89 of the High Court judgment stated: “The learned Lokpal is requested to accord its consideration for grant of sanction under Section 20 of the Lokpal Act, strictly in accordance with provisions thereof as construed hereinabove, within a period of one month from today.”
The Supreme Court also issued notice on petitions filed by the Lokpal against other High Court judgments that adopted a similar view.
High Court Findings on Lokpal Sanction Chargesheet Prosecution
The controversy relates to allegations that Moitra received cash for asking questions in Parliament on behalf of businessman and friend Darshan Hiranandani.
In an interview with The Indian Express, Moitra admitted that she had shared her Parliament login and password details with Hiranandani. However, she denied receiving any cash from him.
The dispute began after BJP’s Nishikant Dubey wrote to the Lok Sabha Speaker. In that complaint, he alleged that Moitra had taken bribes to ask questions in Parliament.
Dubey said the allegations originated from a letter addressed to him by Advocate Jai Dehadrai.
Moitra later sent a legal notice to Dubey, Dehadrai and media houses. Through that notice, she denied the allegations against her.
Moitra’s Challenge Before High Court
Before the Delhi High Court, Moitra challenged the Lokpal’s order dated November 12, 2025.
She argued that the order was erroneous, de hors the provisions of the Lokpal Act, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
According to her case, the Lokpal invited arguments and filings from her but ignored them before issuing the order granting sanction under Section 20(7)(a) of the Lokpal Act.
Her plea stated that the sanction order reduced the Lokpal’s role to mere “rubber-stamping of the Investigation Report.”
She also argued that the Lokpal granted sanction to file a chargesheet without considering any defence offered by her.
Her plea further stated that the Lokpal closed the door on the filing of a closure report. According to her, it did so without considering her submissions and defence. Instead, it summarily granted sanction for filing a chargesheet to her prejudice.
CBI’s Stand and High Court Findings
The CBI argued that an accused has no right to a hearing before grant of sanction. It said the accused may only submit comments and cannot claim an oral hearing.
After hearing the parties, the High Court held that the Lokpal of India had misread the provisions of the Lokpal Act.
In the High Court’s view, the Lokpal had wrongly interpreted the statute as creating two separate sanctions. One was for filing a chargesheet under Section 20(7)(a). The other was for starting prosecution under Section 20(8).
Rejecting that interpretation, the High Court held that the Lokpal Act contemplates only one stage of sanction for prosecution.
The Court explained that Section 20(8) only empowers the Lokpal to decide which agency will conduct the prosecution. It does not create a second stage of sanction.
The High Court observed: “Section 20(7)(a) of the Lokpal Act constitutes the sole and final stage for grant of sanction for prosecution.”
Further High Court Observations
The High Court further held that once sanction is granted under Section 20(7)(a), the Special Court becomes competent to take cognisance and proceed in accordance with criminal procedure law.
It also held that, at the stage under Section 20(7), the Lokpal only needs to consider the investigation report and the written comments of the public servant and the competent authority.
Additionally, the High Court observed that the Lokpal had “departed from the prescribed statutory procedure” and had undertaken an impermissible exercise of “statutory ingenuity” by restructuring the process laid down by Parliament.
Case Details
Case Title: Lokpal of India v. Mahua Moitra
Case No.: SLP(C) No. 8919/2026
Also Read: Bombay HC Notice on LPG Supply Plea
